Māori values for land use planning
Garth Harmsworth Email 
(Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa)
Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North
Reference as: Harmsworth G.R. 1997: Māori values for land use planning. New Zealand Association of Resource Management (NZARM) broadsheet, February 1997. pp 37 - 52.
Whakataukī
'Ka mau tonu ngā tāonga tapu o ngā matua tupuna
Koinei ngā tāonga i tuku iho, nā te Atua'
'Hold fast to the treasures of the ancestors
for they are the treasures that have been handed down to us by God'
'Kia whakatomuri te haere ki mua'
'To walk into the future our eyes must be fixed on the past'
Introduction
This paper is a summary of research being undertaken in the FRST programme 'Māori values for land use planning' (Harmsworth 1995). The research has involved working closely with representatives from five iwi: Ngāti Porou, Rangitāne, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and Ngai Tahu. A number of other iwi representatives have also been involved in commenting on and using the methods and frameworks developed to date and we thank them for their contribution. The main objective has been to develop methods and frameworks for recording, organising, analysing and displaying Māori values information, including mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge), in geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-media systems. Methods are designed to take into account the sensitivity of the information, cultural and intellectual property rights, and existing Māori systems for recording this knowledge. The research is providing methods and frameworks for the development of comprehensive Māori value datasets and models specific to, and owned by, individual hapū or iwi. From these datasets information can be displayed as a series of GIS 'layers' (see figure 1). Robust spatial infomation systems are required to assist planners to formulate planning and policy. It is hoped in future to integrate this cultural information with biophysical, economic, and social information for iwi and hapū planning.
 |
Figure 1: Māori values as GIS layers in a computer. Sensitive information can have different degrees of protected access. |
In New Zealand there are legislative requirements under the Treaty of
Waitangi, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Historic Places
Act 1993, and the Māori Land Act 1993 to include Māori cultural,
historic, spiritual, and physical values in environmental / land use and
social planning. These requirements are somewhat difficult to achieve
at present, because the information is either sparse or lacking, difficult
to obtain due to its confidential or highly sensitive nature, of variable
quality across administrative areas, or often not in a form or context
suitable for planning. Furthermore, the degree of consultation with tangata
whenua (e.g. local iwi or hapū) required to collect this information
varies from place to place, and can range from being close and constructive
to non-existent. As a result, planning and policy at national, regional,
district and community level as required under legislation have been difficult
to achieve because of insufficient detail, substandard quality, lack of
consultation, and the absence of national coordinated strategies. Present
research indicates that although many regional councils and some district
councils have invested much effort in this 'information needs' area, the
legislative requirements remain difficult to meet.
In the preface of the Ngai Tahu resource management strategy report of
the Canterbury region - 'Te Whakatau Kaupapa' (Tau et al. 1990), David
Shephard, principal planning judge, wrote:
"The duty of resource managers to take into account the needs of Māori people has not been fully performed in the past. In part that has been because many planning and resource management authorities have not obtained ready and reliable sources of information about the attitudes and interests of tangata whenua. Planning decisions have been the poorer for that".
With the adoption of GIS by several iwi (as at June 1996 eight iwi in NZ were using GIS, B. Soutar, Critchlow Associates, Wellington - Suppliers of MapInfo GIS software - pers. comm.), this type of information is being increasingly stored, controlled, and accessed by individual iwi and hapū in their own premises (e.g. Ngāti Porou in Gisborne; Ihaka, pers. comm.). This obviously opens up the opportunity for local government agencies, government departments, and private companies to forge better alliances with Māori organisations, such as iwi authorities, to access Māori cultural information in future, and possibly store (under certain conditions) some of this information on their own planning databases.
The development of comprehensive information systems integrating cultural and social information with biophysical and economic information, is of paramount importance as a basis for more rational and informed debate on environmental issues, and to enable more effective land-use planning at the community and national level.
Māori Beliefs
Māori values are derived from a common or universal Māori belief system. These Māori beliefs are:
- dynamic
- derived partly from a religious base
- central to Māori life.
Fundamental concepts include:
- Whakapapa - genealogical descent, lineage;
- Mauri - the life force, the essential essence of being, an energy which permeates through all living things;
- Ritenga - custom, rules, regulations, protocols, includes rāhui and tapu.
The traditional Māori whakapapa begins with Ranginui the Sky Father, and Papatūānuku the Earth Mother. They had several children, who are departmental gods (atua). Included amongst them are Tangaroa (parent/origin of water or god of the sea) and Tāne Mahuta (god of forests and man). The Māori view of the world can be broadly defined as a series of states or dimensions:
- the material or physical state, which is familiar to most people.
It is exposed to us through our senses, and it is the one we can directly
observe and describe (e.g. taha tinana);
- the mental or intellectual state, which requires us to think holistically
to understand the whole system, with all processes, not just one part
of it (e.g. taha hinengaro);
- the spiritual state, which many people are unfamiliar with. It is
the spiritual dimension of Māori culture (taha wairua);
- the related/associative state, which is learnt over a long period of co-existance and association with the environment. We say that we learn by experience (e.g. taha whanaunga).
Land, water, and air to Māori are special taonga. Their use and management require special care and attention. There are a number of terms commonly used in resource management today derived from the traditional Māori belief system:
ahi kā: The principle of occupation, caretakership and use.
aroha: Wise use of resources based on the motive of care and concern.
kaitiakitanga: Spiritual/cultural and physical guardianship based on tikanga. The root word is tiaki which means "look after".
mana: Authority, influence, prestige.
rāhui: Regulation on the use of resources for conservation purposes.
rohe: Area of land within a generally recognised boundary.
tapu: The principle of respect which enables good and proper decisions to be made regarding the use of resources.
tikanga: Social norms, customs, practices and lore adhered to by Māori .
Māori Values
Māori values are instruments by which Māori people view/interpret/experience and make sense of the world (Marsden 1988) and are derived from traditional Māori beliefs. There may be great variation in the things being valued at the community level, but the universal values and beliefs still apply. Land, water, and air are essential ingredients of life, to be respected, cherished, and sustained. Everything in the Māori world has a life force, the mauri, and contamination or degradation of natural resources is seen to damage and diminish the life force (te mauri), and affect the well-being of people. Traditional Māori values contain the common Māori belief that all biophysical things and sites, plants, trees, animals and human beings have a certain amount of tapu, mana, and mauri. In the modern context this is explained by the following selected quotes:
"the important challenge in the modern context is the wise use of natural resources in a way which is consistent with the values passed onto us by our tūpuna" (Tau et al. 1990, pp. 4-19)
"this challenge includes the wise use of natural resources, knowledge and technology passed onto us..." (Tau et al. 1990, pp. 4-19).
A whole range of things are regarded as examples of Māori values.
At the iwi, hapū and whānau levels (tribe, sub-tribe, extended
families) they include such things as wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna
(sacred sites), examples being urupā (burial grounds), old battlegrounds,
pā (old fortified villages), marae (settlements), and papa kāinga
(ancient settlements and reserve areas). Other special resource sites
such as mahinga kai and mahinga mātaitai (traditional food source
areas) should also be taken into account. Māori values also apply
to important archaeological sites, such as areas associated with artefact
finds (e.g. adzes, waka/canoe, rock art), and natural resource areas including
important types of vegetation, animal and bird life, and rock and mineral
source areas (e.g. pounamu/nephrite/greenstone).
Manatū Māori , the former Ministry of Māori Affairs, described Māori cultural sites as 'windows to the past'. 'These places help give meaning and values to the environment in which we live' (Te Puni Kōkiri 1993).
Results of Hui and Discussions
A number of hui and small group discussions were held in 1994/95 and 1995/96 in an attempt to define or describe what was meant by the term “Māori values”. These were supported by an extensive literature search and review in 1994/95. Representatives from different iwi provided a wide cross section of views on Māori values, and how they should be recorded. At the detailed level, each iwi had a variable set of environmental and planning issues to contend with. Other subjects discussed at hui included the suitability of this type of information on planning databases, Māori value classifications and inventories, cultural and intellectual property rights, iwi and hapū management plans, and planning issues for each iwi/hapū.
All groups provided many examples of poor or inadequate consultation
by local authorities. Most groups were neither anti- nor pro-development,
but wanted greater input at the start of the planning process, not just
during it, or at the end. This would see a shift to much more proactive
planning, involving participation, rather than the more common reactive
examples in recent years (e.g. Wiri, South Auckland, PCfE 1996). Examples
of common environmental and cultural issues discussed at hui are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Major environmental and cultural issues highlighted at hui |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Māori Values Definition
From the discussions a definition of Māori values was developed: 'any natural resource, area, place, or thing (tangible or intangible) which is of physical, economic, social, cultural, historic, and/or spiritual significance to tangata whenua'. The definition was deliberately left open ended so that certain objects, attributes, or other things of significance were not constrained in meeting this definition. The definition, by including the word 'intangible', caters for language as in Māori placenames, particularly those used by tangata whenua, and the recording of information related to metaphysics or to cosmology was also regarded as important.
Any definition must take into account the sense of identity and belonging to land, water, and air. Traditionally, land was not something that could be owned or traded as a commodity. Māori did not seek or possess anything, it was more important to belong. This sense of belonging was a belief that one was born out of the land and implied that there was a relationship between people and land. Such relationships were embedded in Māori cosmology, attitudes and beliefs. Māori values manifest themselves in many forms in the natural world, and can be conceptualised as places, objects, features, and things, both tangible and intangible. Often as attributes of land, water, and culture, they can be represented in a spatial or geographic context. Māori values, as interpreted from the RMA 1991 and the Historic Places Act 1993, refer to a large range of sites, places, natural resources, objects, features, and things, including:
- biophysical sites, features (e.g. watercourses, lake beds, river beds, landmarks, mountains, land, soil, and water, vegetation, hydrothermal areas, wetlands);
- medicinal plants, plants for weaving;
- cultural/social sites (e.g. marae);
- historic sites of special significance (e.g. pā );
- discrete sites of special significance, often spiritual (e.g. urupā, sacred shrines (tūāhu), and other wāhi tapu);
- Māori placenames;
- temporal changes to rohe boundaries, often based on ancestry, that impact on the natural resources therein;
- waka landing and anchorage sites (e.g. ūnga waka, tauranga waka);
- buried art (carvings, including whakairo and pounamu).
Reasons for Collecting Māori Values Information
There are three main reasons for collecting this type of information. The first is to satisfy the legislative requirements as stated under the RMA 1991 and Historic Places Act 1993. The second, requiring urgent attention, is that much of this information, particularly the knowledge (mātauranga) passed from one generation to the next at the iwi, hapū, and whānau level, is either being increasingly lost through death of knowledgeable Māori, especially kaumātua, or is not recorded because of deficient systems or lack of resources to transfer and store this knowledge. Māori values information is seldom stored on any type of planning database and most presently resides with individual Māori, particularly kaumātua.
The third reason for collecting this type of information is to provide a basis for iwi, hapū and regional or district environmental management plans. Te Puni Kōkiri produced a document 'Mauriora Ki Te Ao' in 1993 to help Māori plan for and manage their environmental and natural resources. This document, a key planning tool, promoted the concept of environmental planning and developing environmental inventories to help iwi, hapū and marae planning. This document also stated that 'Mauriora Ki Te Ao was all about developing new systems of management based on all that is good from Māori and western environmental management . . . created for the benefit of all'. Te Puni Kōkiri (1993) gave two main reasons for greater Māori participation in the management of the environment:
- a right to manage the environment, recognised by the Treaty of Waitangi; the creation of a better environmental management system drawn from both Māori and western philosophy.
Some iwi have begun to record and document their Māori values. Ngai Tahu produced a publication on the natural resources of the Canterbury region (Tau et al. 1990), which highlights some of the cultural and spiritual values they recognise in relation to the land. Sensitive information, such as wāhi tapu, has been broadly referenced to maps but details are only given through silent files.
What are some of the problems in obtaining Māori values information
at present?
- difficulties contacting the right people to talk to;
- difficulties finding the right types of information;
- a limited time frame within which to find information;
- no centralised place to find information on Māori values;
- no co-ordinated system to direct an enquirer or user to a particular piece of information or to a person (e.g. kaumātua);
- the increasing loss or lack of records of Māori values information through successive generations at the iwi, hapū, whānau level; the ignoring of areas or sites regarded as significant to tangata whenua, because much planning is carried out using western cultural perceptions of what is important, and information is often collected using non-Māori conceptual approaches.
End use of the information for resolving issues
Examples of how this information could be used have been identified at various hui:
- improving the effectiveness of land-use planning by helping to identify Māori values within a spatial context; helping with land-use/resource management conflict resolution by identifying Māori values within a spatial context; improving conceptual frameworks showing what and where Māori values are; trying to quantify in some way the term Māori values; incorporating a Māori dimension/perspective into environmental planning, so that land is looked at not simply in the 'market' sense as illustrated by the terms unproductive land, marginal land, high value land, highly productive land; giving an intrinsic value to land through expressions of taonga, mana, mauriora, and tapu; linking biophysical, economic, and social information with Māori values to provide information which helps define changes in land ownership, land tenure, land use, and demographic patterns through time; referencing Māori values information spatially to portray community values and help future planning scenarios; quantifying different community values to identify the type, whereabouts, and magnitude of the values.
Other notes on the use of Māori values information:
- understand cultural basis of value;
- allow informed decisions to be be integrated into policy;
- help plan socially acceptable (to tangata whenua) uses of Māori land;
- establish impact of European values on Māori values;
- help focus monitoring activities towards locations of high cultural value/threat of degradation or loss;
- facilitate adoption of GIS-based planning technology and cultural/intellectual property rights among Māori community.
- resolve conflicts between competing land uses; help choices between alternatives, since we are valuing a stream of outcomes over time;
- raise awareness of value of resources;
- stimulate examination of land-use options, and development of procedures for evaluating options;
- provide a basis for investment for production or conservation;
- build understanding of determinants of value;
- establish 'costs' associated with resource degradation/option loss.
Methods for Recording Māori Values on GIS
Information Systems
The function of an information system is to improve the ability to make decisions, and can be described as a chain of operations that takes us from planning the observation and collection of data, to storage and analysis of data, to the use of derived information in some sort of decision-making process (Calkins & Tomlinson, 1977; Star & Estes 1990). For example, a map is an information system, because it is a collection of stored, checked, analysed data, and information derived from this collection is used in making decisions. However, to be useful a map must be able to convey information in a clear, unambiguous fashion to intended users (Star & Estes 1990).
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
A Geographic Information System (GIS) can be defined as 'a system for capturing, storing, checking, manipulating, analysing, and displaying spatially referenced data' (Hearnshaw & Unwin 1994). GIS are highly suited for generating 'visual' spatial information which helps people understand relationships between information, concepts, and ideas. Both maps and graphical displays can communicate and present spatial information effectively; showing patterns (detecting change through time), quantifying features, analysing relationships, and visualising hypothetical 'what if' scenarios. 'Seeing' something graphically through pictures or maps has always been a good way to communicate and present information. GIS, if set up correctly, could allow individuals or community groups to play a more active role in planning within their environment.
Methods
Results from discussions with a number of iwi representatives indicate that Māori values information can be stored on GIS databases, provided that any system developed is done so in a culturally sensitive manner, and that cultural and intellectual property rights are taken into account in any methodology. Because much of this information is highly sensitive or confidential to each iwi or hapū, there are many factors on data acquisition and property rights to consider. It was necessary, then, first to develop a Māori values classification of all the types of information that could be recorded by iwi or hapū. Second, to develop a structured framework (see table 3), within which all information could be organised taking into account, resolution and detail, sensitivity of information, confidentiality, acknowledgement, and cultural and intellectual property rights.
A Māori values classification
Once the term Māori values was described and defined, it was possible to develop a provisional Māori values classification, including cultural, historic, spiritual, and biophysical information, which as at August 1996 is still being added to and modified in association with a number of iwi representatives. Part of the Māori values classification, sacred sites, is shown in table 2 which indicates the level of detail required at the tangata whenua level. Māori values information is first organised into one of eight main groups in the framework in table 3. Effectively this framework matrix allows links between national, regional, iwi, and hapū level information in any database. Each piece of information is acknowledged to a source or several sources, whether it be a person (e.g. kaumātua), book, archive, or map, and references are coded appropriately for database entry.
The development of Māori value classifications and inventories are required for the development of hapū and iwi management plans.
|
Table 2. Part of a provisional Māori values classification for recording sacred sites |
||
| General classification at the national and regional level | Detailed classification at the community or local level | |
| Wāhi Tapu (WTP) | wāhi tapu (wtp)- sacred site, undefined | |
| Wāhi Tapu Areas (WTPA) | urupā (u) - burial ground, cemetry | |
| wāhi pakanga (wp) - battle sites | ||
| ana (a) - caves | ||
| rua kōiwi (rk), wheua (wh) - pit for skeletal remains | ||
| wāhi horoi-a (h) - place for washing, cleansing | ||
| wāhi horoi tūpāpaku (wh) - site for cleansing of corpse(s) | ||
| wāhi takotoranga tūpāpaku (wtt) -site for positioning of corpse(s) | ||
| tūāhu (t) - ritual place, alter, shrine, sacred place | ||
Cultural and intellectual property rights
Once Māori values information has been recorded and classified, it is organised within the framework matrix shown in table 3. Recorded information generally becomes more sensitive from top to bottom (1- 8). From left to right (a-d) the information becomes progressively more detailed and confidential, and requires greater protection using methods that conceal disclosure or give limited access. This allows different levels of protected access to be attached to specific types of information, and ensures confidentiality, for example, for different categories or degrees of wāhi tapu. In terms of property rights, each piece of information is categorised and coded from left to right as: (a) able to be stored and accessed through national or government databases, and therefore in the public domain, (b) could be stored and accessed in regional or local government databases under certain conditions specified by the iwi, hapū, or whānau, (c) only stored and accessed on specific tangata whenua databases, such as an iwi or hapū authority, and (d) confidential information that belongs to an individual or group, such as a whānau or individual kaumātua. This affects the type and form of information that can be recorded and stored at each level.
Table 3. A matrix framework for recording Māori values information |
||||
| Main groups used in Māori values classification | a. National level, central government (national databases, public domain access) | b. Regional and district databases, such as local government
(conditions and criteria required for storing confidential information) |
c. Māori databases such as at the iwi or hapū tribal
level
(secured protection of information) |
d. Individual or group information - extended family (whānau)
or individual
(highly sensitive or personal infomation) |
| 1. vegetation | 1a. national or regional data vegetation and land use | 1b. regional or district data on vegetation and land use | 1c. local information on vegetation types | 1d. special vegetation, such as medicinal plants, plants for weaving |
| 2. animals, birds, fish, insects | 2a. national or regional data on animals, birds, etc. | 2b. regional or district data on animals, birds, fish, insects | 2c. local information on animals, birds, fish, insects | 2d. special animals, birds, fish, insects, such as special foods, cultural harvest |
| 3. land, soil | 3a. national or regional data on landforms, soils, etc. | 3b. regional or district data on landforms, soils etc. | 3c. tribal information on land features, landforms, soils, etc. | 3d. special landmarks, land features, muds for weaving, dyes |
| 4. water | 4a. national or regional data on water | 4b. regional or district data on water | 4c. tribal information on water | 4d. detailed or confidential tribal information on water |
| 5. air | 5a. national or regional data on air | 5b. regional or district data on air | 5c. tribal information on air | 5d. detailed or confidential tribal information on air |
| 6. special places | 6a. limited information on special places, cultural sites | 6b. regional and district information on special places, cultural and historic sites | 6c. tribal information on special places, cultural and historic sites (such as archaeologocal sites) | 6d. detailed family and tribal information on special places, cultural and historic sites (such as archaeological sites) |
| 7. sacred sites | 7a. no or little information at the national or regional level | 7b. regional and district information on some sacred sites | 7c. tribal information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) | 7d. detailed family and tribal information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) |
| 8. metaphysical | 8a. no information at the national level | 8b. no information at the regional or district level | 8c. tribal information on metaphysical (spiritual, cosmology) information | 8d. detailed family and tribal information on metaphysical (spiritual, cosmology) information |
Once organised, referenced and entered into the GIS, the information can be spatially represented as a series of GIS layers (see figure 1). Each layer has different levels of confidentiality and protection.
Confidential or highly sensitive information not recorded in the GIS (such as that in column d of the framework, table 3) can still to be acknowledged and linked to the GIS. It is possible to direct an enquirer by way of a directory within the GIS to a source for that knowledge, even if it requires transfer in oral or written form. This allows the development of complementary information systems, rather than ones (e.g. electronic) that replace the other (e.g. written or oral). The result is that GIS can only store, at the most, a small proportion (<10%) of the total indigenous knowledge held by kaumātua, for a particular iwi or hapū. It also allows databases to be linked between national, local authority, and iwi and hapū levels.
Information that is too sensitive to record onto a map or in a GIS
database can still be linked via a database directory to an individual
person to allow for greater information to be obtained from source.
A number of options may be used to direct an enquirer to another information
source, without the information being directly accessible from a GIS.
Alternatively if the information is in a GIS database it can be given
restricted access. Some options are given:
- recording the information as silent or concealed files, linked
to a GIS database or a map;
· recording the information as an overlay, such as grid network, which does not identify the actual position or location of restricted or sensitive information such as wāhi tapu;
tting up a directory, which can direct the enquirer, via a Māori organisation such as an iwi authority, to an individual (e.g. kaumātua), for answers to particular questions, for example, enquiries about wāhi tapu or urupā.
These methods provide a link to a knowledge source for each item defined as restricted or sensitive. A label on a map, or within a GIS, can simply 'flag' a sensitive or restricted area, directing the enquirer to another information source, e.g. the Ruunanga or Trust Board offices.
Potential issues related to storage of Māori values information on GIS
If we start to store Māori values information in planning databases, such as GIS, a number of potential issues arise. These issues are as relevant between local authorities and iwi, as they are between iwi, hapū, and whaanau. They include:
-
control of information;
- where the information should reside;
- ongoing maintenance and development of a database;
- intended end-use of information;
- potential for bypassing the consultative process;
- cultural and intellectual property rights and ownership rights of the information;
- potential impacts on tikanga Māori (Munn, submitted paper).
Iwi and Hapū Management Strategies and Plans
One reason for collecting Māori values information is to provide the information base for iwi or hapū environmental management plans. “A plan articulates goals, aspirations and procedures for a group of people and their taonga” (Te Puni Kōkiri 1993). Its objectives should be “to protect and maintain resources, assets, people, and to enhance the well-being of tangata whenua”.
Iwi management plans need to spell out both general and particular attitudes, values, beliefs, and policies that Māori have. Management plans can specify what activities are permitted and where, what activities should be restricted, and what activities should be prohibited. "...Tino rangatiratanga, as guaranteed in the second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi, includes the right to contribute to resource allocation, and management decisions where these impact on tribal resources" (Tau et al. 1990). GIS's are one tool that could be used to help tangata whenua attain some of their goals and aspirations, by empowering individuals and groups to play a more active role in planning and promoting sustainable land-use and economic development within their environment.
Kōrero - General Discussion
Historic and cultural heritage is an important part of New Zealand's environment and identity. The Commission for the Environment (PCfE 1996) recently wrote in a report entitled “Historic and Cultural Heritage Management in New Zealand” that the system for management and protection of historic and cultural heritage as a whole is performing poorly, is very reactive, is poorly resourced, lacks integrated strategic planning, and appears to fall short of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a significant policy gap at national and regional levels, and a lack of Government commitment to the protection of historic and cultural heritage. Further, the relevant duties, resoponsibilites, and accountabilites of the different agencies involved in management and protection are not always transparent or well defined. The key issue is the effectiveness of the RMA to sustain historic and cultural values. Without some form of strategy to identify these values and then provide some form of protection or appropriate management, these values will be lost forever.
Consequently, the permanent loss of all types of historic and cultural
heritage continues at an alarming rate. For example, in the Auckland
metropolitan area, over 50% of significant pā have been extensively
modified or destroyed since city development began; less than 2.5% of
original stonefields, areas that also contain wāhi tapu, and areas
regarded as significant to tangata whenua remain (PCfE 1996). Of known
archaeological sites in the Auckland region, 6% were destroyed or modified
between 1979 and 1994 (PCfE 1996). A 1993 archaeological site survey
in the lower Hauraki Plains showed that 40-45% of all archaeological
sites (70% of all midden sites) had been destroyed as a result of the
Waihou Valley Scheme (PCfE 1996). In the Canterbury region, 40% of all
sites in the hill country and 70% elsewhere had been destroyed or damaged
(PCfE 1996). With greater intensification and urbanisation of land,
and increasing forestry land-uses, the issue of protection of heritage
sites is likely to become more contentious. Although modification and
damage is unavoidable in certain circumstances, these figures do give
some weight to the reality that integrated management needs to take
Māori value sites into account more effectively.
From a Māori point of view, there are increasing concerns around the country related to the modification and destruction of wāhi tapu, ancestral sites or special places, important archaeological sites, and other sites regarded as taonga. Māori values information needs to be integrated into planning at all levels. At the hapū level, it is estimated that less than 10% of Māori heritage and archaeological information are presently recorded in any form of database, such as the New Zealand Archaeological Association file or Historic Places Trust registe,r which have traditionally been heavily relied upon by local authorities.
Organisations involved in research, planning, and policy development for protection of cultural and historic sites need to become more coordinated. A coordinated strategy at national, regional, and local level is urgently required to improve the present approaches, systems and methods available to record and store information on Māori values and Mātauranga Māori and to set priorities for this type of work. It is hoped that initiatives being undertaken in this project, and others like it, will lead to a greater community awareness and understanding of what Māori values are and where they are, to a commitment to more pro-active planning, and to the development of more positive attitudes to Māori values in planning and policy.
Future directions
The most effective way of incorporating Māori values into the planning
process is by assisting and encouraging tangata whenua to develop their
own plans and strategies for incorporation into all future planning
documents. This could be acheived by iwi or hapū developing their
own databases, a process that could be difficult given the present low
level of resources for this kind of work. Alternatively, it could be
achieved through local authorities building better alliances or partnerships
with tangata whenua, with opportunities to share existing planning databases
and information.
The value of iwi- and hapū-based information systems is that they
could be linked not only to a national information base, but also to
local authorities and the Department of Conservation (PCfE 1996). Obviously
tangata whenua would need to have a certain amount of control, custodianship,
and ongoing maintenance over what is, in many cases, their own information
within a specific tribal area. Information property rights need to be
fully discussed with tangata whenua before information is recorded or
stored in any database, so that there is a mutual understanding of what
information is required, where it is to be stored, who will have custodianship,
and what is its intended end-use. The development of planning databases
for iwi and hapū is seen as a positive way to increase Māori
involvement in environmental planning and resource management at national,
regional and local level. It also has application for increasing training,
employment and educational opportunities.
Acknowledgements
The Māori values project is funded by the Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology (FRST) under FRST contract no.C09611. All those iwi, hapū, whaanau, and individuals who have contributed to the project to date are gratefully acknowledged and thanked for their time, support, and ideas.
Whakapuakanga - References
Black, T. 1994: Lecture on `Te Mauri', June 1994, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Calkins, H.W. and R.F. Tomlinson, 1977: Geographic Information Systems: Methods and Equipment for Land Use Planning. International Geographic Union Commission on Geographical Data Sensing and Processing. Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harmsworth, G.R. 1995: Māori values for land use planning: Discussion Document. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research unpublished report. 118p.
Harmsworth, G.R. 1996: Geographic Information Systems and Māori Land values. Extended abstract, Pp 15-16. In Proceedings of 5th National Workshop for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems for Natural Resource Management, Massey University, Palmerston North, 18th-19th April, 1996. 64 p.
Hearnshaw, H.M. and D.J. Unwin. (eds) 1994: Visualisation in Geographical Information Systems. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, England. 243pp.
Love, Morris Te Whiti, 1993: Kaupapa Māori and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. Raukura consultants, Wellington, New Zealand. 97pp.
Marsden, M. 1988: The Natural World and Natural Resources. Māori value systems and perspectives. Resource Management Law Reform Working paper no. 29, Part A. Wellington. Ministry for the Environment.
Munn S. (submitted): Issues associated with the use of Geographic Information Systems by Māori . Refereed paper submitted to `He P kenga Korero' journal, Department of Māori Studies, Massey University. 13pp.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCfE), 1996: Historic and Cultural Heritage Management in New Zealand. Wellington. Parliamentary Commisioner for the Environment. 188p.
Soutar, B. pers.comm. Critchlow Associates Ltd, Wellington. Suppliers of MapInfo GIS software.
Star J. and J Estes. 1990: Geographic Information Systems: An Introduction. Prentice Hall Inc. 303pp.
Tau, T.M., A. Goodall; D. Palmer; and R. Tau. 1990: Te Whakatau Kaupapa. Ngai Tahu Resource Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Aoraki Press. 250pp. Includes a series of maps.
Te Puni Kookiri (Ministry of Māori Development) 1993: Mauriora Ki Te Ao - An Introduction to Environmental and Resource Management Planning. Te Puni Kookiri, Private Bag, Wellington. 35pp.
Your feedback or comments about any of the material on this, or related, pages is welcomed. Please feel free to contact Garth Harmsworth Email
Page last updated: Friday, September 14, 2001